The phrase “sleeping with an elephant” has come to define US-Canadian relations in the minds of many Canadians. But since President Trump launched his second term in Oval Office, the elephant has been neither friendly nor even-tempered. In fact, its twitches and grunts have recently become more like angry kicks and menacing roars, especially with Trump’s imposition of a 25% tariff on most goods from Canada.

Rather than meek acceptance, however, the response in Canada has been a surge of nationalist sentiment. Only, at the helm of this patriotic revival is a new prime minister, Mark Carney, for whom the substance of Canadian identity amounts to little more than . . . globalism, multiculturalism, and liberal proceduralism.

Trump has offered varied justifications for his punishing tariffs. He alleges an uncontrolled stream of illegal immigrants and fentanyl pouring across the border, notwithstanding the Canadian government’s serious efforts at interdicting such flows. He is on much firmer ground when he points to the trade imbalance between the two countries, with Canada running a significant trade surplus with the United States; about 20% of what Canada produces is consumed by Americans.

At a meeting in Mar-a-Lago, Justin Trudeau, the recently ousted prime minister, protested that such tariffs would “kill the Canadian economy”, eliciting from Trump a suggestion that Canada would be better off as the 51^st state. This line was initially heard by most people as a jest, but Trump has become fixated on the idea. Remarks about the US-Canadian border as an “artificially drawn line” have fueled fears that his real endgame is annexation.

Suggested reading

What the Right gets wrong about Canada

By Michael Ledger-Lomas

Perhaps Trump is just trolling, something that certainly wouldn’t be out of character for him. But a recent post on his Truth Social website signals that he may mean business. “The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State”, he wrote. “This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear”. Trudeau, for one, takes Trump at his word, stating that he believes the real aim of the tariffs is nothing less than “a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us”.

Trump’s tariffs and his annexation rhetoric have had consequences that he surely did not intend. Canadians have never been big flag-wavers, but sales of Canadian flags have skyrocketed, American liquors are being pulled from store shelves, grocery stores are slapping labels on domestically produced items, and many people are scrapping travel plans to the United States. A movement to boycott US goods is underway.

The tariffs have also been a godsend to the governing Liberal Party. Trudeau’s plummeting approval ratings threatened to deliver his party a crashing defeat in the election to be held later this year. But when Trudeau’s unpopularity prompted his resignation, the Liberals were forced to replace him as party leader and prime minister. Mark Carney, an economist and banker with no previous experience in elected office, won in a landslide in the party vote. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Liberals are now inching their way back up in the polls, though they still face a steep uphill climb.

Carney’s victory speech on 9 March tapped into the rising nationalist sentiment. Switching back and forth from English to French, Canada’s two official languages, he called out Trump for “trying to weaken our economy”. But more than the Canadian economy is at stake, he warned: “The Americans want our resources, our water, our land, our country. If they succeed, they will destroy our way of life.”

What exactly did Carney mean by the phrase “our way of life”? Hockey, maple syrup, Tim Hortons, and politeness come to mind. But the features of Canadian identity that Carney highlighted were all political or institutional, such as universal health care and the country’s strong tradition of social programs and wealth redistribution. He also lauded Canada’s much-vaunted policy of multiculturalism: “America is a melting pot. Canada is a mosaic.”

“America is not Canada. And Canada never, ever, will be part of America in any way, shape, or form”, he declared to an enthusiastic audience. He made it clear that the future of Canada now depends on pivoting away from economic integration with the United States to seek more “reliable” trading partners.

Carney also sought to attach the odor of Trump to the opposition party, insinuating that the Conservative standard-bearer Pierre Poilievre “worships at the altar of Donald Trump”. To accuse Poilievre of kneeling before the US president may be an overstatement, but he has voiced support for many of Trump’s policies and has a reputation of being cozy with MAGA types. He recently accepted the endorsement of Elon Musk, an action that may come back to bite him.

Still, Carney is an unlikely champion of Canadian nationalism. Born in the Northwest Territories, he spent most of his adult life outside Canada, studying at Harvard and Oxford, then working for Goldman Sachs in London, New York, and Tokyo. After a stint as the governor of the Bank of Canada, he in the same role at the Bank of England. He holds both British and Irish citizenship, making him an EU citizen.

From the perspective of nationalism, it is noteworthy that he stoked controversy at the helm of the Bank of England when, prior to the Brexit vote, he decried leaving the European Union as the “biggest domestic risk to financial stability”. Many interpreted his remark as a political intervention that overstepped his job description.

Carney also has strong ties to globalist elites, with memberships in the G30, the World Economic Forum, and the Bilderberg Group. In short, he is the quintessential Davos Man, a cosmopolitan technocrat and financial bureaucrat with a newfound fondness for nationalist rhetoric.

Arguably, what Carney defends as “our way of life” is a vision of Canadians as good global citizens pulling their weight within the rules-based international order that Trump seeks to dismantle. As Canadian political scientist Tyler Chamberlain has observed, “Canadian identity is bound up very closely with multilateralism, international organizations, and free trade. That’s the kind of nationalism that is playing well today”. Meanwhile, Canadians watch American television, cheer American sports teams, and “think like Americans in many ways that really matter — but we have health care.”

Carney is a specimen of what Canadian political philosopher Ron Dart calls liberal nationalism, which is of relatively recent vintage, the chief precedent for the present moment being Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s trade disputes with Richard Nixon. “Liberal nationalism usually emerges from a position taken by the United States at a given moment that threatens certain elements of the Canadian economy”, says Dart. It tends to be reactive and narrowly focused on economics.

Suggested reading

Justin Trudeau's ‘feminist‘ hellscape

By Julie Bindel

It differs from what Dart calls High Tory nationalism, “which comes from a much deeper grounding in the Canadian soul”. Its most prominent exponent in the 20^th century was the philosopher George Parkin Grant, but it harks back to the founding of Canada as a nation that sought to preserve British and French traditions that were foreign to the society taking shape in the United States. Instead of placing a premium on liberty and individualism, like the Americans, the Canadian High Tory tradition aspired to a more orderly society oriented toward the common good of the whole.

Over time, however, Canada was transformed into what Grant called a “branch plant satellite” of the United States, a supplier of raw materials to the superpower that had emerged postwar as the “spearhead” of the dynamic liberal capitalist order. As early as 1965, Grant lamented that Canada was ceasing to exist as a sovereign nation. Dependent on the United States for both markets and defense, Canada was being absorbed, culturally and economically, into the behemoth to its south. Canada’s formal political independence might still persist for some time, Grant thought, but only due to a kind of inertia.

Grant believed that Canada was being swallowed up into an emerging global order helmed by the American hegemon. In a surprising twist, the American republic that now threatens Canadian sovereignty is a nation in open revolt against that liberal hegemonic order. Living within the gravitational field of the United States, Canada has always retained ties to its older roots in Europe. Ironically, Trump is now forcing Canada to become more internationalist in the name of Canadian nationalism.

But Dart believes this current upsurge of liberal nationalism is shallow. Though intensely felt at the moment, it is also likely to be ephemeral, lasting only as long as MAGA’s reign, since it is motivated by an external threat rather than a living memory of older Canadian traditions. “If you have no memory of anything”, he says, “then what holds you together? What holds Canadians together at this point is anti-Trumpism.”

I was once one of those people. I’m a lower-middle class, suburban British bloke from Generation X, who was brought up to believe that the system broadly worked and was mostly fair, at least for people like me. The government did its best, though sometimes the wrong people got in; the police were here to help; there were career ladders and housing ladders, and if you worked hard and behaved responsibly and paid your taxes, then society would reward you for it.

Of course, this was a partial story, as all stories are. Plenty of people would have cackled cynically at it from the start, while others, including me, disabused themselves of it by degrees. I spent 30 years writing about the degradation of nature and culture by the state-capitalist technocracy that governs us, so I imagined I was a hard-bitten realist. But the last few years taught me that I was still too naive about the mythic “social contract” with the state that I apparently entered into at birth, despite having never signed a thing.

As I say, it’s not just me. The loss of faith across the West in our institutions, leaders and representatives in recent years has been radical. When, I wonder, did that contract expire? Maybe in 2003, when the lies with which the Iraq war was launched were so blatant that even those telling them seemed unconvinced. Or maybe later, in 2016, when Brexit happened and Donald Trump happened and European “populism” happened, and suddenly any opposition to liberal globalism became fascism or bigotry or the work of Russian bots.

But it was the pandemic — or rather, the response to it — that changed everything for me. I hadn’t been prepared see, in my allegedly free and democratic country, a merger of corporate power, state power and media power in the service of constructing a favoured narrative, of the kind which had previously only characterised totalitarian regimes. What the Covid regime brought home to me was that I had not, despite what I believed, really understood the real nature of power until I saw it exercised in its raw form over my life. Specifically, I had not understood the power of the state.

Nothing has the power or reach of a modern state. Its sheer scale and strength gives it the ability to corral, organise, define, measure and control its population in a manner that is unmatched in human history, and that power only grows and deepens. The momentum of a state is always towards the centre, always towards the agglomeration of more power. A state is like a black hole: at a certain point, it begins to suck in everything around it. As it grows, it will tell stories that justify its existence. Democracy, liberty and progress are some of the more recent banners beneath which state power has gathered, but there have been others: racial or ethnic homogeneity, human equality, religious purity. All of these stories have the potential to unite a people around a state core.

More from this author

Who will stand against Progress?

By Paul Kingsnorth

What happens, then, when large and powerful states, along with the transnational institutions and corporations they promote and protect, are all driving towards the same goal: the universalisation of an American-style “global economy” and its associated culture? This has been the story of the world since 1945, and the result is the world’s first truly global system. The expansion of this system has created problems — ecological degradation, social unrest, cultural fragmentation, economic interdependence, systemic fragility, institutional breakdown. The system has responded with more expansion and more control, growing bigger, more complex and more controlling.

Modernity can best be seen as a system of enclosure, fuelled by the destruction of self-sufficient lifeways, and their replacement with a system of economic exploitation, guided by states and exercised by corporations. The disempowering of people everywhere, and the deepening of technological control, is the inevitable result, and the pandemic overreach will not be the last example. So what is the correct response to the problem of power, and the reach of the state? Avoid it? Hide from it? Confront it? Ignore it? All of these? Or something else? Can we escape the state and live differently? If so, how?

Jacques Ellul, the great theorist of technocracy, had his own answer to these questions: “The only successful way to attack these features of modern civilisation is to give them the slip, to learn how to live on the edge of this totalitarian society.” Ellul, I think, was right. The state is the chief enemy of human freedom. It cannot be conquered or replaced. But sometimes, under the right circumstances, it can be evaded.

In his 2009 book The Art of Not Being Governed — subtitled, “an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia” — the historian James C. Scott offers up some historical examples. Scott’s aim is twofold: firstly, to lay out the history of a vast upland region he calls “Zomia”, straddling territories from India to Malaysia, which has managed over centuries to avoid assimilation by encroaching states. And secondly, to rewrite the standard story of historical progress as it applies to the region. The “hill tribes” and “barbarians” living outside civilisation’s walls, he says, are neither “left behind” by “progress”, nor the “remnants” of earlier “backwards” cultures; they are in fact escapees. “Hill peoples are best understood as runaway, fugitive, maroon communities who have, over the course of two millennia, been fleeing the oppression of state-making projects in the valleys — slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée labour, epidemics and warfare.”

Scott’s thesis is that throughout history, escaping from the reach of oppressive states has been a popular aim, and that in response, some cultures have developed sophisticated ways of living in hard-to-govern “shatter zones”, which allow them to avoid being assimilated. Standard-issue historical accounts of “development”, he says, are really the history of state-making, written from the state’s point of view: they pay no attention to “the history of deliberate and reactive statelessness”. Yet that history — whether of hill tribes, runaway slaves, gypsies, maroons, sea peoples or Marsh Arabs — is global and ongoing. Taking it into account, says Scott, would “reverse much received wisdom about ‘primitivism’”. Instead, we would read a history of “self-barbarisation”: a process of reactive resistance, of becoming awkward, of making a community into a shape that it is hard for the state to absorb, or even to quite comprehend.

Suggested reading

Is the psychedelic industrial complex evil?

By Ed Prideaux

The state, says Scott, is fundamentally a colonial entity. In its youthful vigour, it will institute a process of “internal colonisation”, creating a homogenised “national identity” from the various cultures it governs, flattening language and dialect and telling a story in which loyalty to community or place becomes indistinguishable from loyalty to the state. Later that colonisation process may move beyond its borders, as the state projects its power onto more distant peoples, assimilating them too. This is enclosure at work, and it is never voluntary. Like laissez-faire capitalism, or aristocracy, the state — which has only existed for the last 1% of human history — did not simply “evolve” as some logical phase of human “development”. It was created, by the use of raw power, through land seizures, slavery, enforced labour and taxation.

For this reason, escaping from state power and creating different ways of living in the “shatter zones” was an attractive option. Those zones were usually to be found in hard-to-reach places; in Southeast Asia, this meant the hills and mountains. Their peoples — the “tribals” or “Adivasi” or “savages” — would not, in most cases, be entirely cut off from lowland life; they would often trade with urban centres, for example, and some would raid them, too, if they got the chance. But they would keep their distance, wary of being corralled by the state machinery.

The Asian states, as they expanded, sought to impose the religious, cultural and economic practices of the dominant ethnic group — be it Thai, Burman, Han or Kinh — onto disparate peoples. When European colonists arrived in Asia, they simply continued the process, with a new cultural flavour. The official religion now might be Christianity rather than Buddhism, and “civilisation” might mean British rather than Han manners, but to the peripheral peoples the result was little different. British imperialist Sir Stamford Raffles spoke not only for his Empress, but for the mind of the colonial state across history, when he wrote of Sumatra:

“Here I am the advocate of despotism … Sumatra is, in great measure, peopled by innumerable petty tribes, subject to no general government … At present people are wandering in their habits as the birds of the air, and until they are congregated and organised under something like authority, nothing can be done with them.”

But such localised, potentially dispersed cultures can be tough to conquer. In the 1890s, the British found the conquest of the Kachin and Palaung hill peoples in Zomia almost impossible. Because they had “never submitted to any central control”, complained the chief commissioner responsible for the process, they had to be attacked “hill by hill” to ensure their submission. The historian Malcom Yapp invented a wonderful term for this kind of dispersed culture of refusal: jellyfish tribes. In Scott’s words, jellyfish tribalism is “a process of defending cultural and economic autonomy by scattering” to “make the group invisible or unattractive as object of appropriation”. The Berbers of North Africa, faced with colonisation by the Arabs, had their own way of putting this: divide that ye be not ruled. Lois Beck, who studied tribal culture in Iran, pointed to the same tactic in use there: “Large tribal groups divided into smaller groups to be less visible to the state and escaped its reach.”

Suggested reading

The danger of safetyism

By Matthew Crawford

All of this points to some potential ways forward for those who fear the continued expansion of the increasingly globalised, technocratic state today. The challenge, it seems to me, is to move beyond pat political formulations of “resistance”, and begin to think instead like the hill tribes of Zomia. To think about becoming barbarians by choice. To begin to build parallel systems — economies and cultures — which are hard to assimilate, and have a robustness to them which can last. To construct “cultures of refusal”.

But how could this actually be done? The modern West is not like Zomia — indeed, as Scott himself points out, modern Zomia is not like Zomia used to be either, with many of its stateless people now being rapidly absorbed into state systems, which new technologies have made more powerful and far-reaching than ever. What hope of any kind of alternative life in a hyper-connected, monitored, digital age? Even if we wanted to retreat to the margins to build our own community, how many of us could do it? And what would make that community more robust than the last counter-cultural wave of “intentional communities”, which sprang up after the Sixties, and failed to create utopia?

This is why I find the notion of the jellyfish tribe so intriguing. Any attempt at building utopia will fail — but utopia should never be a goal. Some form of free survival is the goal; survival in order to uphold the values of a true human life. There is no easy or standardised way to emulate what Scott calls the “state-repelling characteristics” of the Zomians, but there is one question it might be useful for anyone who seeks to evade Leviathan to ask themselves: what kind of barbarian do I want to be?

In ancient China, the state distinguished between two different kinds of barbarian outsider: the raw (sheng) and the cooked (shu). A 12th-century document detailing the relationship of the Li people with the Chinese state speaks of the “cooked Li” as those who have submitted to state authority and the “raw Li” as those who “live in the mountain caves and are not punished by us or do not supply labour”. But while the raw Li were clearly enemies of the state, the cooked Li were not exactly friends either. State officials “suspected them of outward conformity while slyly co-operating with the raw Li”. The raw barbarians lived outside the walls and the cooked lived within, but neither were really to be trusted.

What we see here, then, is two potential escape routes: one outside, one inside. Shatter zones do not have to literally be in the hills: they can be within our homes and even within our hearts. My heart soars whenever I hear of some remote monastery or surviving rooted community with no online access or even electricity, whose people know exactly where they stand: outside the state, the better to see God and experience creation. Such places are the work of the raw barbarians, and we need more of them.

Suggested reading

When fear leads to tyranny

By Jonathan Sumption

But most people are cooked barbarians. We are, to different degrees, in the state but not of it. Perhaps we look like good citizens on the outside. But if we coalesce as a jellyfish tribe, we can begin to dissociate ourselves from the state, while creating alternatives to it. Plenty of people are already doing this. They create cultures-within-cultures, parallel economies and ways of living. Like small furry mammals running unnoticed beneath the feet of the tyrannosaurs, we can thus build our own little worlds on the margins and wait for the coming of the meteor, which we can already see coming in the very un-sustainability of technological modernity. The mice don’t attack the dinosaurs, and neither do they wait for them to die out: they just avoid them as best they can, and get on with their work.

What Scott’s book shows me above all is that the tension between expanding power centres and free peoples is eternal and never-ending. Throughout history there has been an ongoing flow of assimilation and breakout, consolidation and collapse. There has never been any system as large, as overwhelming, as inhuman, as all-seeing, as technological modernity, and yet Rome and Babylon and Han China operated on the same principles. The shatter zones that rise in response are sometimes geographical, sometimes psychological and spiritual, and often all of these at once. Today, some of those shatter zones are at least partly online; and despite my own instinctive Luddism, I have to accept that such spaces are meeting points for state-repelling people who might never meet in real life. I have to accept, too, that using technology to resist technocracy can be of benefit, even though it can also be a trap.

In the age of Starlink, eyeball scans, AI bots and digital passports, it is getting harder and harder to find anywhere to hide. But humans are creative. There are countless practical ways in which cultural refusal can manifest in our everyday lives. I am a writer, for instance, who is currently watching the publishing industry being taken over by political puritans who are purging incorrect thoughts from the shelves, while rooting around in the past for baddies to cancel. I can whine about this, or I can support or start new publishers on the margins who do things differently. The same might be true for music, art, academia, food-growing. Everything is compromised; nothing is easy. But building anew, retreating to create, being awkward and hard to grasp, finding your allies and establishing your zone of cultural refusal, whether in a mountain community or in your urban home: what else is there?

Whatever culture you come from, it will offer up at least one folk hero who earned his or her status through state-repelling behaviour. In England, we have hundreds of pirates, highwaymen, outlaws and rebels to choose from. You all know the name of the most famous: England’s shadow self, Robyn Hode, who flits through his shatter zone, the English greenwood, with his merry band of refuseniks in tow. We could do worse than to find our own greenwood and take our stand there, beneath the shelter of its great, ancient oaks.

*

A longer version of this essay was first published at the Abbey of Misrule.

Three thousand faces, hidden by black, woollen ski masks, bore the distinctive features of the Mayan Indians of Central America: a people outgunned, outcompeted, pillaged, slaughtered or simply passed over since the Spanish conquistadors first arrived on their shores in the 16th century. Now, half a millennium later, here in Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest and southernmost state, “the ones without faces, the ones without voices” had come to make the world listen.

The people of San Cristobal de las Casas, the old conquistador capital of Chiapas, were still groggy from their New Year celebrations when their town came alive with the sound of marching boots. They heard orders barked in Tzotzil, a local Mayan language, by the black-haired major, carbine in her hands, pistol strapped to her chest, who commanded this uninvited army. And from the picturesque central square, the Plaza 31 de Marzo, its ancient yellow cathedral and colonial government buildings framed by a clear white moon, they heard the sound of gunshots.

Those citizens brave or curious enough to venture out into the square were met with a sight they were unlikely to forget: dozens of masked guerrillas were swarming around the Plaza. Some were standing guard with their battered rifles, others were surrounding the police headquarters, while others, armed with sledgehammers, were pounding on the great wooden doors of the Municipal Palace. There could be little doubt in the minds of the people of San Cristobal about what they were witnessing. It was the first act of a revolution.

More from this author

The West has lost its virtue

By Paul Kingsnorth

A small group of guerrillas raised a flag in the middle of the elegant square — a black flag, printed with four red letters: EZLN. As they did so, on to the balcony of the Municipal Palace emerged a masked figure. In his hand he held a piece of paper. It was a declaration of war against the Mexican government: one which, on that same morning, would be read aloud to the people of six other towns in Chiapas which this “EZLN” had also claimed as its own.

“We are the product of 500 years of struggle,” he read as, in the background, more gunfire and palls of smoke indicated that a rebel column was storming the police headquarters. “We are the inheritors of the true builders of this nation … denied the most elemental preparation so they can use us as cannon fodder and pillage the wealth of our country. They don’t care that we have nothing, absolutely nothing … There is no peace or justice for ourselves and our children … But today we say: Ya basta! Enough is enough!”

Five hundred miles away, Mexico’s president, Carlos Salinas, and his anointed heir, Luis Donaldo Colosio, were celebrating the New Year in an exclusive holiday resort on the Pacific coast. As the bells rang, Salinas and Colosio raised glasses of champagne and toasted the official arrival of NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — which, at the stroke of midnight, officially came into operation. With the sound of those bells, NAFTA had created, for the first time in history, one great borderless free market between Mexico, Canada and the USA. Mexico had officially entered the modern world, and Salinas was celebrating his legacy.

Two hours later he was on the telephone, listening to news of a development that would shatter not only that legacy, but his successor’s presidency and his party’s age-old iron grip on Mexican politics; and which, later — much later — would begin to shake the legitimacy of the global free trade project itself. The Secretary of Defence was calling from Mexico City, and he had bad news. Very bad news. An armed insurgent force, calling itself the Zapatista Army of National Liberation — EZLN — had seized control of seven towns in Chiapas state and declared war on the army, the government — and NAFTA itself.

“Are you sure?” croaked the president.

***

It’s been a long time since I wrote those paragraphs. That is the opening of my very first book, One No, Many Yeses, an account of the first wave of anti-globalisation protests, which was published 19 years ago. Back then, excitable young anti-capitalist that I was, I believed that I was part of a worldwide “mass movement” which was rising up against the colonisation of the world’s economies and cultures by an unaccountable corporate elite.

Since at least the end of the Cold War, the declared aim of the Western powers has been the spread of a global market economy, combined with a liberal politics and culture, to every benighted corner of the Earth. Since a globalised market can’t function without globalised tastes (you can’t sell your cheap burgers to Asia until you’ve convinced Asians that they’re lovin’ it), and since liberalism also needs an appropriate soil to seed in, the momentum of this ideological crusade is towards the creation of one global culture, whether the world wants it or not.

This threefold rollout — global economy, global culture and global political system, all of them based on the American model — has long been referred to with the bland moniker “globalisation”; or globalism, if you prefer. In reality, it is a form of soft colonialism — the latest iteration of Western empire — and a hugely successful one.

Suggested reading

Crisis is the new normal

By Aris Roussinos

Back in the late Nineties, the “anti-globalisation” movement that rose up in opposition to this process was a political melting-pot of anarchism, localism, indigenous perspectives, radical environmentalism, liberal commitments to democracy and various other strands, all of it uncoordinated and fervently anti-hierarchical. It was a mess, but it was an exciting mess. And though a lot of people involved, including me, were allergic to labels and boxes, there was no doubt that this was a movement of the Left.

Though wrong about plenty of things, the Left has traditionally been correct about the negative impacts of global capitalism, while the Right has floundered about denying its impacts on the poor, on democracy and on nature, generally valorising greed and rapine, and then wondering where the “traditional values” they love so much have gone. You wouldn’t have found any conservatives on the barricades at the anti-WTO protests. Most of them were either inside hymning the virtues of “free” trade, or back in Washington or London ginning up the next Middle East war.

How times have changed. Here in the 2020s, the Left anti-globalism that I once thought was the movement of the future is barely in evidence anywhere. The most incisive opponents of corporate globalisation today are often to be found on the Right; or at least, not from any identifiable sector of the Left. Conservative, traditionalist and “post-liberal” critiques of the impact of globalisation on local communities, nation states, social cohesion, family formation, working class prospects, culture and even (though not often enough) the natural world are pouring out daily. The post-working class Left, meanwhile, has veered into an identity politics cul-de-sac, dictated largely by its commitment to an elite class war and an obsessive pursuit of cultural inversion.

The worldview that the academic Eric Kaufmann calls Left-modernism is now the outlook of the professional managerial classes, the top 10% or so of society, and — not coincidentally — the beneficiary class of globalisation. Via transnational corporations, the academic and cultural sectors, NGOs, global and regional bodies and other collectives of usually unaccountable power, this class is rolling out the threefold ideology of globalism within their own nations and beyond. Meanwhile, a national populist movement built largely around a working- and lower-middle-class reaction to this ideology is coalescing around calls for national self-determination, some degree of cultural conservatism, economic protection and democratic accountability.

On the face of it, this is confusing. Why would transnational capital be parroting slogans drawn from a leftist framework which claims to be anti-capitalist? Why would the middle classes be further to the “Left” than the workers? If the Left was what it claims to be — a bottom-up movement for popular justice — this would not be the case. If capitalism was what it is assumed to be — a rapacious, non-ideological engine of profit-maximisation — then this would not be the case either.

But what if both of them were something else? What if the ideology of the corporate world and the ideology of the “progressive” Left had not forged an inexplicable marriage of convenience, but had grown all along from the same rootstock? What if the Left and global capitalism are, at base, the same thing: engines for destroying customary ways of living and replacing them with the globalised, universalist, technological matrix that is currently rising around us?

More from this author

The West has lost its roots

By Paul Kingsnorth

We are living through a time of radical flattening, as this emerging global system, which I like to call the Machine, rapidly replaces previous ways of being with a new and novel global civilisation. Emerging from the industrial revolution and the dislocations of modernity’s revolutions, this Machine is now engaged in a project of deconstructing both human nature and wild nature, replacing them with a borderless world of etiolated, rational individuals, each of them equal participants in a global marketplace governed by algorithms, profit and dreams of universal oneness.

With the possible exception of the bit about the marketplace, this is also a good description of the project of the political Left. The very notion of a “Left” was birthed with modernity: the term comes from the seating arrangement of the anti-monarchy faction of the French assembly after the revolution. Despite much self-mythologising, leftist ideology has always been primarily a product of urban intellectuals and middle-class radicals pursuing a project of theoretical levelling. This levelling always begins with the destruction of previous lifeways — Mao’s four olds, the Bolshevik project to eliminate the “bourgeois family” (currently being resurrected by some on the contemporary Left), French revolutionary attempts to rationalise the landscape, the current progressive push to “transition” children — but what it ends up doing is clearing the ground for the Machine.

Progressive leftism and global capitalism, far from being antagonistic as some of us once thought, have turned out to be a usefully snug fit. Both are totalising, utopian projects. Both are suspicious of the past, impatient with borders and boundaries, and hostile to religion, “superstition” and the limits on the human individual imposed by nature or culture. Both are in pursuit of a global utopia where, in the dreams of both Lenin and Lennon, the world will live as one.

Suggested reading

Why we love to hate Imagine

By Dorian Lynskey

If the past 40 years have taught us anything, it’s that dreams of universal equality can segue very easily into dreams of universal market access. There’s a reason that both progressives and The Economist champion open borders. There’s a reason so many hippies ended up as tech billionaires. If you have ever asked yourself what kind of “revolution” would be sponsored by Nike, promoted by BP, propagandised for by Hollywood and Netflix and policed by Facebook and YouTube, then the answer is here.

In the roiling breakdown of the 2020s, progressive leftism and corporate capitalism have not so much merged as been exposed for what they always were: variants of the same modern ideal, built around the pursuit of boundless self-creation in a post-natural world. The Canadian “red Tory” philosopher George Grant once observed that: “The directors of General Motors and the followers of Professor Marcuse sail down the same river in different boats.” These days, they have abandoned their separate vessels and are sailing downstream in a superyacht together, while the rest of us gawp or throw rocks from the banks.

Perhaps we could say that the levelling instinct is the West’s gift to the world. It’s a complicated offering, to be sure, but at its noblest it is one to be proud of. Without some levellers around, a culture is in danger of becoming ossified, abusive and top-heavy. Power always needs to be kept on its toes. Leaders and systems should always be prepared to justify their existence.

But what happens when levelling is the only instinct left? When the culture is so empty, so purposeless, so uprooted, that it has forgotten how to do anything but deconstruct itself? More to the point: what happens when levelling is the instinct not of the poor, but of power? What happens when the destruction of borders, limits and boundaries benefits big tech, big money and those who drink from their spigot, rather than the small voices left thirsting in the fields? And what happens when big money uses the language of the small voices — the language of levelling — to tie up its work in pretty bows?

This is where we are. The post-modern Left, which has seized the heights of so much of Western culture, is not some radical threat to the establishment: it is the establishment. Progressive leftism is market liberalism by other means. The Left and corporate capitalism now function like a pincer: one attacks the culture, deconstructing everything from history to “heteronormativity” to national identities; the other moves in to monetise the resulting fragments.

Suggested reading

Your Fitbit has stolen your soul

By JUSTIN E. H. SMITH

Where, then, to stand? Could there be a Left without progress? Could there be a Right without capitalism? Perhaps, but we first need to come to terms with the radicalism of the times we are living through. This is a time in which the pertinent questions are not “who should own the means of production?” or “should we privatise the health service?” They are “what is a woman?”, “where should we implant the microchips?”, “how quickly can we get this digital ID system up and running?”, and “what do you think of my new killer robot?” The creation of designer babies, the abolition of the sexed body, the growing of brains in labs: whatever you want, the Machine can provide it, technology can fashion it, and progressive ideology can redefine it as justice.

When people ask me where I stand, I say these days that it’s with an older tradition: the same one I was writing about in that first book, although I didn’t know it then. It’s a tradition I saw represented in what the Zapatistas did back in the 1990s and I have heard its echo in historical uprisings in my own country, from the Luddites to the fen tigers. It’s a tradition which takes its stand not according to ideological positioning, but according to actual positioning: on Earth, under the sky, surrounded by people who know where the sun rises in the morning, where they come from and who they are.

It’s a tradition we could call reactionary radicalism: resisting the Machine’s totalising force from a perspective rooted in the Three Ps: people, place and prayer. Neither Left nor Right nor anywhere else, it’s a tradition that crosses all the modern divides, because it is older than all of them. It digs down, literally, to the root of the matter. It is the dream of a localised, populist opposition to gigantist, destructive modernity in all its forms.

Maybe this is a pipe-dream: but sometimes we see it carry the day. The Zapatistas are still there, after all, and still fighting. NAFTA is gone, too — though it wasn’t the EZLN, in the end, that did for it. The treaty that drew their ire as a symbol of all that was wrong with the imperial project of corporate globalisation was eventually torn up, not by indigenous guerrilleros or a socialist Mexican government, but by a reality TV star-turned Republican US president, who believed that globalisation was a con-job which empowered transnational capital at the expense of nations and their people. Whatever else he may have been wrong about, he was right about that. Unfortunately, most of the Left were too busy calling him a Nazi to notice the irony.

For neoliberal ideologues such as Milton Friedman, who used the pencil fable to argue for opaque world-spanning supply chains, the beauty of such complex systems is not only that the consumer obtains his product at the lowest price possible, and that the producer can maximise his profits, “but even more to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world”. As the historian Quinn Slobodian noted in Globalists, his recent study of the first neoliberal theorists, such idealistic motivations were evident from the very start. Ignoring the fact that the globalised world of the late 19th century failed to prevent World War One, they believed that creating a giant interconnected market would make a repeat of such a cataclysm impossible.

They were wrong. Instead, the restructuring of the global economy into a large web vastly increases the risk of a total system collapse. Instead of one economy failing, a shock in one corner of the world can place great and sudden stress on economic and political systems thousands of miles away. A war in distant Taiwan can mean you’re no longer able to buy a new car; a drought on the other end of the world means empty shelves at home. 

As archaeologists and historians have increasingly begun to stress, our globalised world has seen two antecedents in the past: in the interconnected, hyper-specialised trading systems of the Bronze Age, and those of the Roman Empire at its height. When both buckled under a wave of unexpected shocks, the result was not decline or recession but total collapse, a process defined by the great theorist Joseph Tainter as “fundamentally a sudden, pronounced loss of an established level of sociopolitical complexity”. 

More from this author

Could we win a war in China?

By Aris Roussinos

This is, as Tainter observes, “a suddenly smaller, simpler, less stratified, and less socially differentiated” society, where “the flow of information drops, people trade and interact less” and “specialization decreases and there is less centralized control”.  This is not a Spenglerian moral fable of societal decline, but an inexorable process whereby growing complexity and sophistication bring with them a growing fragility: when a combination of shocks arrive, the entire society is suddenly forced to reorganise itself. It is not an extinction event or the end of the world: life goes on, just in a poorer, simpler fashion.

The great trading civilisations of the Bronze Age Mediterranean present just such an example. As the archaeologist Eric H. Cline notes in his recently reissued book 1177 BC, for more than two thousand years the great civilisations of Egypt, Western Asia and the Aegean had formed a single interconnected trading system, dependent on complex trading networks that “were open to instability the minute there was a change in one of the integral parts”.

When crisis struck, shortly after 1200 BC, it took down all the civilisations of the Bronze Age Mediterranean simultaneously. As Cline notes, “perhaps the inhabitants could have survived one disaster, such as an earthquake or a drought, but they could not survive the combined effects of earthquake, drought, and invaders all occurring in rapid succession”. A “domino effect” followed, in which, thanks to the globalised nature of their world,  “the disintegration of one civilisation led to the fall of the others”.

The collapse of Roman civilisation, a product of an overextended, underfinanced empire weakened by internal feuding among its political elites, presents another apposite example. As the archaeologist Bryan Ward-Perkins emphasised in his 2005 book The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation, the most remarkable aspect of Roman civilisation, archaeologically speaking, was the ability of even the poorest members of society to afford cheap and high-quality consumer goods, enabled by immense specialisation in production and an interconnected trading network that spanned the entire empire.  

Yet after Rome collapsed, such goods were only available for the very richest members of society. In the production of ceramics, the use of coinage and the construction of stone buildings, the Western half of the empire suddenly sank back to a level of societal complexity lower than in Iron Age prehistory, not returning to a Roman level of sophistication until the later Middle Ages. And indeed, as Ward-Perkins warns, the Roman economy’s complexity was the precise reason its collapse was so total: “economic complexity made mass-produced goods available, but it also made people dependent on specialists or semi-specialists — sometimes working hundreds of miles away — for many of their material needs.” While this worked well in times of stability, it precipitated collapse when trade routes were disrupted.

More from this author

Crisis is the new normal

By Aris Roussinos

Like Friedman, or Biden, Ward-Perkins observes that today “we are wholly dependent for our needs on thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of other people spread around the globe, each doing their own little thing”. Yet he draws a very different conclusion about the desirability of this situation, noting that now “we would be quite incapable of meeting our needs locally, even in an emergency”. 

Yet of course, even as they were living through its early stages, the Romans were unaware their society was collapsing. Yes, goods were harder to come by, infrastructure was increasingly degraded, urban life was increasingly unsettled, economic growth was only a memory, and new religions boomed as people tried to make sense of their declining prospects. But even still, the military failures on the empire’s eastern fringes barely impacted life in the imperial centre. For some people, great profits could still be made: for most, things went on much as before, though with a lower standard of living with each passing year. No doubt, things will improve soon, Romans told themselves: this is only a temporary blip.

The theorist of collapse John Michael Greer dates the beginning of the collapse of our own society in the economic crisis of the mid-1970s, which drove deindustrialisation in both the United States and Britain and initiated the erosion of state capacity in search of ever-harder to accumulate profits, hoarded by oligarchs even as it destroyed the tax base. This is the process of what Greer terms “catabolic collapse” — “the stairstep sequence of decline” where decades of crisis are followed by decades of seeming improvement, though the underlying society is left weaker and less resilient before the next crisis hits: “rinse and repeat, and you’ve got the process that turned the Forum of imperial Rome into an early medieval sheep pasture.” 

This gloomy view accords well with the Marxist theorist Wolfgang Streeck’s 2016 analysis that the post-1970s crisis of capitalism, accelerated by the 2008 financial crash, has led us into a period of civilisational entropy and decay. For him, we experience “life in the shadow of uncertainty, always at risk of being upset by surprise events and unpredictable disturbances and dependent on individuals’ resourcefulness, skillful improvisation, and good luck”. It is a period where the state can no longer guarantee its citizens order or security, where “deep changes will occur” in an unpredictable fashion, and where every last effort to squeeze profit out of a collapsing system further undermines the social structure.

For Streeck, this interregnum is a time when personal wealth dwindles and financial insecurity becomes the norm. Indeed, as Streeck observes, it is a period where “as growth declines and risks increase, the struggle for survival will become more intense”. It offers “rich opportunities to oligarchs and warlords while imposing uncertainty and insecurity on all others, in some ways like the long interregnum that began in the fifth century CE and is now called the Dark Age”. It is not a vision of hell, or of the kind of apocalypse fantasised by Hollywood, but simply of a degraded version of the present: a world closer to the modern Global South than our recent past. It is not necessarily a sudden cataclysm, but a process that will take decades, perhaps even centuries, to fully reveal itself.

Suggested reading

Crisis is the new normal

By John Michael Greer

Neither Rome nor the civilisations of the Bronze Age Mediterranean were brought down by one single cause. It took the combination of climate change, elite rivalry, military disaster and migratory pressures, combined with the extreme fragility engendered by economic specialisation and tightly-knit international trading networks, to ensure that when collapse came, it was total. As Ward-Perkins warns, Rome’s system of complex supply chains “worked very well in stable times, but it rendered consumers extremely vulnerable if for any reason the networks of production and distribution were disrupted”.

The belated efforts of governments across the world to secure fragile supply chains and enhance food security are the refutation, in action, of the fable of the pencil. As Tainter notes, “the whole concern with collapse and self-sufficiency may itself be a significant social indicator” of decline. A focused effort on domestic resilience is, after all, in itself evidence of reduced civilisational complexity: as trade routes wither and consumption begins to drop, we should strive to ensure that we are heading towards a controlled descent and not a sudden, cataclysmic crash. The imperial centre may not hold, but our lives must go on.

A BBC article from 2001 notes that opponents of globalisation believe “it leads to exploitation of the world’s poor, workers, and the environment; “makes it easier for rich companies to act with less accountability: and “that countries’ individual cultures are becoming overpowered by Americanisation.” On the other hand, “those in favour of globalisation claim it “should make everyone richer… [while] trade links can encourage countries to respect human rights”.

Twenty years on, it is clear that the opponents of globalisation were entirely correct, and the supporters were utterly wrong. And yet, their brains broken by Brexit, Britain’s liberal commentariat continue to advocate globalised food supply chains purely as a result of Remainer tribalism.

The BBC’s neutral tone at the turn of the millennium is almost unimaginable in today’s hysterical discourse, where opposition to globalisation has been re-coded as a political signifier, entirely randomly, from a reasoned Left-wing argument to an irrational prejudice of reactionary and probably racist deplorables. Likewise, the Left has seemingly abandoned its commitment to localisation and the preservation of unionised, national labour in favour of cosmopolitan dreams of unfettered globalisation.

In Britain this bizarre polar inversion is manifest in the political discourse over the current supply chain crisis. The fundamental problem causing empty shelves in Britain today is not Brexit itself, but the over-complexity of supply chains maximised for efficiency in good times, but which are dangerously fragile whenever the system meets a shock. By over attenuating supply chains on a global scale, and centralising food production for the benefit of the supermarkets, the system was unable to cope with the pandemic’s cascading aftershocks, from energy crises to labour shortages, still working themselves through the global economy. 

Suggested reading

Is Boris taking us back to the Seventies?

By Dominic Sandbrook

This is a global supply chain crisis caused by a worldwide slow-motion, but accelerating collapse of globalisation. As the American economist Matt Stoller underlines, globalisation “has left us uniquely unprepared to manage a supply shock. Our hyper-efficient globalized supply chain, once romanticized by men like Tom Friedman in The World Is Flat, is the problem. Like the financial system before the 2008 crash, this kind of economic order hides its fragility. It seems to work quite well, until it doesn’t.” Now, we’re beginning to see what it looks like when it doesn’t. 

Take meat processing as an example. For decades, in search of efficiency, supermarkets have centralised the processing of meat in gigantic mega-abattoirs, forcing small regional abattoirs to close and crowding out local farmers. The working environment in these places is so appalling and exploitative, and the pay so low, that they can only be staffed by immigrants from poorer regions of the world. As a result, more than two thirds of Britain’s meat processing labour force is made up of migrants, making the nation’s food supply dependent on the free flow of foreign labour, and on the nationwide distribution of live animals and processed meat to a tiny number of centralised hubs.

This is an entirely unsustainable as well as immoral state of affairs. As the commentator Richard North, an expert on the meat industry, observes, the number of abattoirs in Britain has shrunk “from 3,326 units in the 1960s to a mere 156 in 2020”, with the result that “the meat industry structure in the UK is already so concentrated as to be unsustainable”. As soon as the system meets a shock, as it has now, it is unable to cope..

Yet even before the current shock, the centralisation of meat production was eroding the resilience of Britain’s food supply. In 2018, 34 separate organisations, from the National Trust to the Women’s Institute and the RSPCA, lobbied the Government to halt the collapse of Britain’s network of small regional abattoirs, “a huge national asset” closing “at an alarming rate”. As Christopher Price of the Rare Breed Survival Trust observes has noted, “large scale abattoirs require workers to carry out highly specific, often highly mechanised, procedures as part of the slaughtering process and employ relatively large numbers of narrower skilled, lower paid people in one location”. Instead, the Government should support the creation of more local and smaller abattoirs, “where each worker is required to be more highly and multi-skilled, with the flexibility for part-time work”. This would benefit rural areas where local employment is rare and “facilitate the creation of new premium markets for distinctive meat products from local breeds and the expansion of related businesses such as butchers and farm shops”.

But instead, this vital opportunity to reform the sector into one dependent on high-skilled, high-paid labour working in significantly better conditions is being squandered. Instead, cheered on by their useful idiots in Britain’s commentator class, the corporate food lobby has leaned on the Government to re-open the floodgates to low-paid migrant labour, keeping a broken and exploitative system on artificial life support. 

The current system is simply unsustainable and exploitative to agricultural workers. As the radical Left farming union the Landworkers’ Alliance noted in their 2016 manifesto, “the rural economy… is vulnerable to competition from global markets and to aggressive price bargaining from cartels of processors and distributors (supermarkets)” with the result that “less than ten per cent of earnings from the UK food industry go to UK farmers and fishermen”. 

Suggested reading

Don't blame Brexit for shortages

By Philip Pilkington

Already, the labour shortage is allowing farm workers to demand higher wages, a process which should be allowed to continue, not just because it’s fair but also because it builds resilience into the system. A Britain where the farming sector is forced into decline by global competition is a Britain highly vulnerable to global shocks of the kind we are experiencing now. And yet, as the Landworkers’ Alliance warned back in 2017, the corporate farming lobby is addicted to the current system, with organisations that have the Governments’ ear like the National Farmers Union “more focussed on developing super-efficient mega-farms capable of competing in a cut-throat global market, than in producing the bulk of the UK’s food supply through a network of secure family farms”. 

The globalisation of supply lines according to the logic of the free market is also a disaster for the environment. As a Greenpeace investigation revealed last week, the growing consolidation of Britain’s dairy industry into a handful of American-style megadairies is allowing global food corporations to feed cows soybeans sourced from Brazil’s endangered Cerrado ecoregion. The impact has been profound: it has accelerated deforestation and global warming, forced cows to live in miserable and unnatural indoors conditions in giant sheds and driven small dairy farmers here in Britain out of business. 

Yet aside from moral questions, the supply chain of soybeans is also extremely liable to disruption in times of crisis, such as the drought — the worst in over a century — currently devastating Brazil’s farming sector. Shortages of soybeans caused by environmental collapse in Brazil or by blockages in the global shipping system will mean future shortages of milk and cheese, an absurd situation in a country like Britain blessed with abundant rainfall and lush grass. 

Such built-in vulnerabilities are dangerous as we head into an era of permanent crisis. Indeed, as the Left-wing economist James Meadway warns, though Brexit has exacerbated Britain’s exposure to supply chain disruption, “it is a parochial mistake to single out Britain’s leaving the EU as the primary cause of the crisis”. Rather, what we are experiencing “is the first tremors of the generalised environmental collapse of this century. Gas prices are not going to come down any time soon, and the supply chain crisis will not be resolved this year — or even next.” 

Crisis is the new normal: and to sustain the very basic good of food security, Britain will have to become more self-reliant, decentralising supply chains in pursuit of resilience rather than efficiency and reshoring food production as far as is possible. This isn’t a leap back to the Middle Ages, as online critics howl: Britain was 78% self-sufficient in food as late as the 1980s, and returning to localised production and supply chains should be considered a vital strategic goal.

More from this author

The Tories can save Blue Labour

By Aris Roussinos

And yet, in a stunning example of cognitive dissonance, we see liberal commentators who warn of the looming catastrophe of climate collapse simultaneously arguing that fragile globalised supply chains are somehow both desirable and permanent. Like the famous quote that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, it seems it’s easier for these people to imagine total civilisational collapse than not being able to eat Kenyan strawberries in midwinter. 

The Left-wing anti-globalisation protestors of twenty years ago were right then, and their newly localist conservative successors are right now. Instead of mocking the Government’s tentative steps towards re-localisation of the nation’s food supply as the backwards fantasies of nostalgic Brexiteers, our stubbornly parochial Remainer comment class should for once step back and observe the changing world around them. 

The global supply chain crisis is forcing the Conservatives to abandon their free-trading dreams as neoliberal ideology gets crushed by stark reality. This is an unalloyed good, and should be supported and encouraged as far as possible. The Government is correct to say that today’s supply chain meltdown is “a failure of the free market and not of the state” and that businesses “have become drunk on cheap labour”. The current crisis is an opportunity to rebalance Britain’s food system into a fairer and more resilient model, and the Government, finally being forced towards good policy by events outside its control, needs to hold its nerve. 

What little manufacturing that the North and Midlands had held on to was expected to collapse as barriers to trade went up. Vengeful Remainers were especially looking forward to the comeuppance of Sunderland — the city that delivered the knock-out blow to Britain’s membership of the EU. Good luck holding on to your Nissan car plant, suckers!

But five years on and Nissan is still here and expanding. A billion pounds is being ploughed into the production of electric vehicles and the batteries are included — Nissan’s partner, Envision AESC, will be building a ‘gigafactory’ to produce them. Vauxhall, meanwhile, is investing a hundred million into its Ellesmere Port plant. The factory will produce electric vans — for which demand is soaring. And there are reports that the British Government is working with Tesla to find a UK site for a major manufacturing centre.

Whatever one thinks of Brexit, these are developments that everyone should welcome.

But Britain wouldn’t be Britain without its moaning minnies. And there are two sets of people who aren’t happy: firstly, the hardcore Remainers for whom any assertion of the British national interest is pure jingoism; and secondly, the free market fundamentalists for whom any government intervention in the economy is a slippery slope to the Seventies, if not downright communism. 

There’s a lot going on to raise their hackles. The Nissan and Vauxhall deals won’t have happened without the Government fronting-up a portion of the overall investment. Last week, the ministers moved to sweep away the EU rules on state aid that stand in the way of further state subsidies. Ministers also decided to keep the trade restrictions that help protect the UK steel industry from cheap imports. And then there’s the National Security and Investment Bill, which was introduced last year to protect British companies from “malicious” foreign investors. 

Meanwhile, Labour is trying to get in on the Government’s act: Keir Starmer has unveiled a Buy British plan to bolster companies through public procurement. 

Critics on both Left and Right see any turn towards “economic nationalism” as a bad thing. But does it have to be?

If you believe in a borderless world in which we have no special loyalty to our compatriots, then any kind of nationalism is bad. But if, like most people, you do believe in the nation state — and that a national government should put its own citizens first — then what is wrong with nationalism in the economic sphere?

The most obvious answer is that free trade is a good thing — and that Britain should not disrupt the level playing field of international competition. It’s a nice theory, but it ignores the fact that the playing field is anything but level. British industry is fighting an uphill battle, because our competitors have no qualms about tipping the terms of trade in their favour. Just look at export-led economies like Germany and China.

Suggested reading

England's war with Germany will never be over

By Peter Franklin

Both of these countries benefit from rigged exchange rates. In Germany this is achieved through the single currency. If the Deutschmark were still around, you can bet that it would be trading at a much higher value against the Pound than the Euro does. This would make German exports a lot less competitive. As for China, it builds up enormous foreign currency reserves, while restricting access to its own currency. The result is a mismatch in demand that skews the exchange rate to the advantage of Chinese exporters.

There are other weapons in the armoury of the economic nationalist. For instance, EU figures show that, as a percentage of GDP, state aid to German industry is more than three times what it is Britain. Subsidy levels are also high in countries such as Hungary, Czechia and Poland — all of them key export markets and cheap labour suppliers for German industry. China subsidises its industries too — through direct support, access to low interest loans and crazy levels of infrastructure spending. It also protects its businesses from foreign competition while enjoying open access to western markets. 

So when the economic globalists talk about free trade, they don’t mean free trade at all. They mean that we should we leave ourselves wide open to the rampant economic nationalism of other countries. 

But so what? If these countries want to sell us their stuff at a knockdown price, then don’t we benefit? Let the Germans and Chinese do what they do best, while we concentrate on what we do best. That way we’ll all get richer. 

Except that we haven’t got richer. Not lately. The UK in particular has suffered from more than a decade of low growth. In terms of GDP per head we are bottom of the league of north European countries (a comparison that was gleefully seized upon by the SNP to make the case for Scottish independence). As for the rate of productivity improvement — on which all prosperity ultimately depends — we’re doing the worst out of the biggest western economies.

The free marketeers have got some explaining to do. This country has done more than most to follow their ideological prescriptions. We’ve thrown open our borders to the flow of goods, services, capital and labour. We’ve allowed foreign interests to buy up our companies and our property. Our public procurement policies emphasise value for money not buying British. For decades, we barely bothered with an industrial policy — and left business investment up to the private sector. And furthermore we’ve encouraged that investment with lower taxes and lighter regulation. 

Suggested reading

Labour isn't working

By Paul Embery

Why, then, aren’t we more productive?

But let’s not just look at the British economy in the abstract. We must also count the human cost. A low-skill low-wage economy comes at a terrible price to pride and hope. That’s especially true when these patterns of work define entire communities and regions. We should, of course, be thankful that we have a job-creating economy, but quality matters as well as quantity. 

The fact is that a policy of economic disarmament — of leaving Britain undefended against the economic nationalism of our competitors — has only delivered prosperity and wellbeing to some of our people. And that is not enough. British voters are demanding more, which is why our Government has tentatively embarked upon a policy of economic rearmament. Above all, this means doing what it takes to build up industries that provide high quality jobs. 

The sceptics will argue that the British economy is perfectly capable of doing that already. For instance, Julian Jessop in the Telegraph holds up the example of the UK’s tech sector. Britain is now home to more than a hundred tech companies worth more $1 billion. This is “a larger number than the rest of the Europe combined”, he says. No need for continental-style industrial policies, then.

Except that key centres of innovation — like London’s Silicon Roundabout — have benefited greatly from government programmes. Public funds have been been ploughed into the capital’s infrastructure — and also into Britain’s world-beating universities. The achievements of our tech entrepreneurs should be celebrated, but their industry has been supplied by the state with the vital resources of connectivity and brainpower.

There’s no reason not to give other strategically-important industries what they need to succeed too. What some industries require may be more specialised than others but the principle is the same. If individual companies can’t bear all the costs and risks involved, then there’s a case for government shouldering some of the burden.

Since the public purse is not bottomless, funds should be deployed where they will make the most difference. However, unlike a private investor, government has the ability and the duty to consider more than just the financial bottom line. Above all, there is goal of providing satisfying, well-paid work not just in some places but throughout the nation. 

In the end, that is what economic nationalism comes down to: economics as if every Briton matters. 

I’m sure there must once have been a law passed which prohibited the citizens of Barking and Dagenham from voting anything other than Labour. It would explain why, when I was growing up in the borough, I never met anyone who did such a thing. Such people did exist apparently, but whichever party they voted for never achieved the merest modicum of electoral success locally. Every MP and local councillor in Barking and Dagenham wore a red rosette.

The place was a working class, blue-collar, industrial heartland. The sprawling Becontree estate, built in the 1920s and 30s, was the largest municipal housing estate in the world. Thousands of families, both sets of my grandparents among them, settled there after moving down the track from London’s East End. The Ford motor plant in Dagenham dominated the horizon.

More from this author

The town that should shame our politicians

By Paul Embery

We were the first family in our social circle to own a video recorder. My dad won it in a competition at work. I recall that he recorded the 1983 election night programme on it, and I can see him now, cursing at the TV the following morning when he replayed the tape and discovered the scale of Michael Foot’s annihilation by Margaret Thatcher. I was eight years old, but I understood then that we were Labour. It was tribal. The party was our party. It spoke for people like us.

Trade unions were on our side too. I knew that, because my dad told me he was something called a ‘shop steward’ at his depot, and my mum worked for the GMB. That was good enough for me.

It was natural that I should stand as the Labour candidate at the mock general election held at my secondary school in 1987. (I won by a landslide — though, frankly, it would have taken some effort to lose.)

Later, as life’s grotesque social and economic inequalities became apparent to me, it seemed obvious that the labour movement — the Labour Party and trade unions together — was the only force interested in tackling them. And I wanted to be a part of it.

This innate tribalism and sense of injustice motivated my 16-year-old self to organise (unsuccessfully) a wildcat strike at the supermarket where I stacked shelves, and later to rub up against every boss who sought to exploit work colleagues or failed to treat them with respect.

It was also what inspired me to join the Labour Party at 19 and plunge straight into activism with the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) when I became a firefighter three years later.

Suggested reading

The betrayal of Paul Embery

By Kate Hoey

The FBU — a proud, powerful union — had its share of hardline activists, many from the ranks of the Communist Party, Socialist Workers’ Party and their fellow travellers. These activists always wielded far more influence than their numbers merited. I fell in with some of them and soon became that very dangerous thing — a person who is utterly certain in his own mind that he is right. Anyone who didn’t subscribe to my worldview, which was so obviously correct, was plainly an Inherently Bad Person. That — trust me on this — is how most radicals on the modern Left think.

I embraced the standard patter and slogans of the far-Left and used them relentlessly in debate. (I often smile when interlocutors use the same language to attack me today — often in a way that suggests they think I have never even heard such clichéd arguments before, never mind deployed them, and will be instantly converted by them.)

Around this time, Barking and Dagenham, then still my home, was experiencing a period of rapid and deep-seated transformation. The settled, stable, culturally homogenous place in which I had been born and raised was suddenly caught in the crosswinds of globalisation. Thousands of newcomers had arrived in the borough in a few very short years. Most were fundamentally decent, hard-working folk, but in a social and cultural sense they had little in common with those who had lived there for years.

Suggested reading

How to be a responsible globalist

By Hassan Damluji

Very quickly, Barking and Dagenham found itself in the eye of a storm of national debate over immigration. Local people felt bewildered and disorientated by the abrupt and far-reaching change to their community. Many simply upped sticks and departed. Streets in which neighbours had known each other and grown up together, which had buzzed with friendship and human interaction, were now places of loneliness and solitude in which people often lived parallel lives. The social solidarity and common cultural bonds that had sustained the community over generations were suddenly fracturing.

Not that any of this bothered me at the time. On the contrary, I welcomed it. This was liberal cosmopolitanism in all its vibrant glory. It was enlightened and progressive. All decent people embraced it, didn’t they?

Besides, it was the class war that mattered most, and the newcomers were working-class allies in the battle against capitalism. Who cared if a few reactionary locals were uneasy about this dramatic change to their community and traditional way of life? These bigots, with their stupid notions of place and belonging and cultural attachment, obviously lacked ‘class consciousness’. And why did they doggedly refuse to be won over by the argument that open borders meant improved GDP?

Suggested reading

How much do globalists really value diversity?

By Peter Franklin

It was because of people like me — tin-eared, patronising, certain in their own moral rectitude — that the British National Party won 12 seats on Barking and Dagenham council at the local elections in 2006. It was the party’s best ever performance in an election. The citizens of the borough, angry and resentful at being ignored and insulted, used the only weapon they thought was left available to them. Abandoned by Labour, they turned to the far-Right.

It was only in the years afterwards, once I had taken the time to actually engage seriously with local people and listen to their concerns, rather than simply bombarding them with boilerplate rhetoric, that I began to understand how wrong I was, how wrong Labour was, and frankly how wrong much of the political establishment was, to dismiss the grievances of communities such as Barking and Dagenham so scornfully.

Here was a place of largely decent, tolerant people who would have been perfectly willing to accommodate a modest and manageable number of new arrivals without complaint, but which had instead been expected to accept fundamental social and cultural change, imposed at breakneck speed. And if they did quibble, they were called racist. No wonder they hit back.

More from this author

How multiculturalism divides us

By Paul Embery

The whole experience taught me that, contrary to what so many on the Left now seem to believe, it isn’t all about the economy or austerity or the class struggle. Of course no place can remain for ever unaltered, but if you are going to foist change upon hard-pressed working-class communities, you had better do it carefully. These places are often bound together organically through a culture of language, custom, solidarity, tradition and social mores passed down through generations. Violate that so casually, and you are inviting blowback.

I am still Labour to my bones. That’s why I argue night and day that the party — and indeed the wider Left — needs to urgently rethink its entire worldview if it is to maintain the support of its traditional base. If we keep force-feeding working-class voters a globalist, liberal cosmopolitan view of the world that fails to resonate with them, we are inviting electoral wipeout. And it would be thoroughly deserved.

Delivering a fairer, more equal economy — crucial though that is — is only half the battle. Millions are crying out for a return to a more rooted, patriotic, communitarian politics that respects their sense of belonging and seeks to build a nation of shared values and common bonds — one in which everyone, regardless of their background, should be encouraged to participate, and where communities are not simply abandoned to the forces of globalisation.

To this day, very few in mainstream politics are speaking for these voters. The lesson of Barking and Dagenham — and I learned it up close and personal — is that if you neglect a community for long enough, the quiet anger will soon become a roar. And the price to be paid will be a high one.

Part investigation of what had already happened, part prediction of what would happen next, it chimed perfectly with a globalised, self-confident moment when Bill Clinton was still President of the United States and Tony Blair had just been elected British Prime Minister. The Berlin Wall had been torn down eight years previously, and the Soviet Union had been in its grave for six.

The infinite potential for the “world wide web” to underpin the world-wide spread of free markets, liberalism and good governance seemed hard to argue with. Prices would fall. Markets would open. That long-predicted phenomenon, the global village, would finally come to pass. And politics would be reduced to a periodic shuffling of the managerial team — based not on ideology but on “key performance indicators“. For a few years, The Death of Distance was a must-read to be picked up in airport bookstalls by executives living the globalised dream, and stored in briefcases alongside 2G mobile phones and very early Blackberries.

In 2019, such fin de siècle dreams seem very far away. Place still matters. The most successful cities and areas continue to pull away from the rest under almost any metric you care to use, whether economic growth, life chances, health or lifespan — and this is particularly true if you are poor. Meanwhile, far from being reduced to a “retail” exercise in choosing different variants of the same globalised flavour, British politics is now an all all-you-can-eat buffet — from full-service socialism through dirigiste Toryism to a post-Brexit bonfire of the regulations.

The social enterprise that I run, Create Streets, understands that place will always matter. We work with community groups to co-design proposals to try to improve them. This has allowed us to form a snapshot of how people feel about where they live and what is happening to it. Whether rich or poor, town or country, nearly everyone worries about the current state and future outlook of where they live. Of course, there is an economic side to this, especially in ex-industrial or seaside towns where shops, pubs or services are closing. And, depending on your politics, you may wish to blame “austerity”, as crime rises and begging and homelessness rise.

But, grievous though these are, there is something more profound going on even in quite prosperous areas: people are losing their sense of home, of their place in the world. They worry that their local neighbourhoods have lost, are losing or are going to lose their heart, their sense of being from here.

Many people feel themselves to be the victim of forces beyond their control. This may be because of the firm headquartered in New York or Hong Kong that shuts an unprofitable subsidiary — but it is just as likely to be development that feels alien and unnatural in its form, conception or ugliness. One woman giving evidence to the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission, which I co-chair with Roger Scruton, could have been speaking for many when she wrote that “Developers … parachute in and seem to know what is best for the area.”

Another commented: “My local experience is that the community is seen as an inconvenience to be swept aside during the planning process. Consultation has fallen to almost nil … developers hold considerable sway.”

Suggested reading

The battle for Brexit Britain

By Matthew Goodwin

One woman, born in the Caribbean and now living in a challenging neighbourhood in north London, told me simply: “I want a development with heart.” She could have said the same in the shires of Oxfordshire and Wiltshire and received widespread agreement.

I could quote many others, many of whom spoke of a deeper need that we almost all share, a need for a home that is not subject to uncontrollable outside forces.

Globalisation and technology have brought marvellous new liberties. The sum total of human knowledge, once only scratchily accessible in the best-stocked university library, now nestles in your pocket. The produce and products of the world, once only accessible in season or to the rich, are increasingly available all year-round, container-shipped, freeze-packed or even 3D printed on demand. Immigration has brought many of the brightest and the best from thousands of miles away to live, study and work in Britain. But we still need to know who we are and where we’re from.

Of course, smart politicians have noticed this. Do you recall a year ago a political broadcast by the Labour Party called “Our Town”? (If not you can watch it here.) It was deservedly successful on social media and featured an at-times desperately moving montage of British urban decay, of abandoned factories and pitheads, rusting playgrounds and decaying streets. The actor narrating might have also been the ghost of English towns and his most effective lines were the least narrowly political.

“These streets were once full of spirit and hope. A proud community, where an honest day’s work could earn you a decent day’s pay… We want to restore the pride in our towns and bring our high streets and communities back to life.”

While much of the broadcast was a call for higher spending, the wider point about the absence of pride, life, community or hope went far beyond this. Those running focus groups for the Government have clearly discovered similar concerns, as indicated by the blizzard of spending announcements since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, boosts to the Northern Powerhouse and millions for new or historic high streets. The Conservative Party conference featured multiple conversations about left-behind towns and regional growth.

Suggested reading

The slow death of Britain's towns

By Will Brett

But it’s not just about the money. In fact, I am not even sure it is primarily about the money. I’d go further and argue that chucking money thoughtlessly can even be counter-productive, ripping the heart out of a community rather than strengthening the one you’ve got.

Examples abound, the most shocking being the post-war regenerations of so many British towns where naively utopian town planners took advantage of bombed buildings and the invention of the internal combustion engine to turn beautiful, if rather smoke-begrimed, town centres into deserted concrete wastelands of empty plazas and passing traffic. The Borough Engineer in Coventry openly revelled in the opportunity that German bombs gave him to pull down far more of the city than the Luftwaffe had ever flattened.

“Ah,” you might say, “but we know better now” — but I am not so sure. There are many pretty shocking examples from the past 20 years, including the perverse and malign Pathfinder Programme, which tried to revive northern cities by knocking down Victorian homes; the public sector infrastructure investment to create out-of-town shopping centres which promptly drained life and sustainable vitality out of the town centre; the Barbara Hepworth Gallery outside Wakefield, which acted to undermine the city centre Art Gallery and, therefore, the city itself.

Some politicians would argue that the solution is to devolve power. Local politicians, runs the argument, understand the trade-offs on their patch better than national officials whose minds are pulled in a multitude of different directions every day of the week. I have sympathy with this argument, but I think it is incomplete. The problem is that many of the worst examples of destructive infrastructure investments were the work of empowered local politicians unhindered by central government or bureaucratic constraints.

Nor, I think, does it go to the heart of the problem, which is that too often we have forgotten how to consider in our decision-making the pride, individuality, moral purpose and human wellbeing of our towns and cities.

Suggested reading

Why cities are no place for kids

By Peter Franklin

Yes there is a place for Boris-style boosterism. Sometimes you need the new, the big and the shiny. But we need to re-discover how to make decisions based on value and moral purpose, not just outputs. We need to find ways to make modest bottom-up investments, empower people and neighbourhoods and let a thousand flowers bloom. This needs some money, and it needs some devolution — but it goes so much further. I was very struck by the evidence one architect gave to the Building Beautiful Commission earlier this year, who recounted how working on a PFI project he was “told by the contractor to put in a more expensive material that looked cheaper because there was real sensitivity about anything in the NHS looking expensive”.

This is perverse, crazy, even Kafkaesque. A hospital is a noble building built for a noble purpose, it should not be built to look disposable and cheap. Many of the proudest structures in England’s towns and cities are 19th century civic buildings, such as Rochdale Town Hall or St George’s Hall in Liverpool. Somehow, somewhere, we have lost not just the ability but even the desire to create public buildings of beauty and moral worth. We need to rediscover that confidence and ability.

But it is not just re-learning how to build new civic buildings with aesthetic standards somewhat above a portacabin. We need to make streets and squares more humane, more walkable, less congested and with cleaner air. We need to look at examples where cities have made people want to live and work there, such as Seville, Copenhagen or even Little Holland in north-east London.

But we also need to look beyond the everyday and take into account the psychologically and existentially crucial, hard-to-measure issues in urban decision-making: residential happiness, sustainability, sense of purpose and pride in your home. Those are what make the difference to a town, making them not merely a place on the map but a living community where people want to live.